Pinpoint · Judgment search

Hudson v Sigalla

[2016] FCA 1204

Federal Court of Australia · 28 November 2016 · Official judgment

Cited by 9 indexed judgments

All Applied or followed 1 Cited 8

2017: 3 citing judgments 2018: 2 citing judgments 2021: 1 citing judgment 2022: 1 citing judgment 2023: 1 citing judgment 2024: 1 citing judgment 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026
citing judgments per year of which distinguished, doubted, not followed or overruled · line marks the decision

Sort: Oldest first Newest first Most cited

  1. Hudson v Sigalla (No 2) [2017] FCA 339 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 22× · judgment
  2. Fewin Pty Ltd v Burke (No 3) [2017] FCA 693 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 24× · judgment
  3. Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd v Coretell Pty Ltd (No 7) [2017] FCA 1469 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 4× · judgment
  4. Coshott v Burke (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 81 Applied or followed Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) · cited 11× · judgment
  5. Hepburn v Beauty Services Holdings Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1577 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 1× · judgment
  6. Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v MB [2021] FCAFC 194 Cited Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) · cited 8× · judgment
  7. Ross (Liquidator) in the matter of Print Mail Logistics (International) Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Elias [2022] FCA 296 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 1× · judgment
  8. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis (Costs) [2023] FCA 613 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 1× · judgment
  9. Masters v Lombe (liquidator), in the matter of Babcock & Brown Limited (in liq) (Lump Sum Costs) [2024] FCA 1336 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 2× · judgment

Tree of authority

Built on

The authorities this case relies on, earliest first, and the authorities those relied on. Open a branch to go further back.

Built upon

Later cases citing this one, in order of decision, and the cases citing them in turn. The most cited are shown at each level.

Authorities cited (27)

Earliest first, with how this judgment treated each.

  1. Smith v Cowell (1880) 6 QBD 75 Cited cited 2×
  2. House v The King [1936] HCA 40 Cited cited 4,342×
  3. Ex parte Bucknell [1936] HCA 67 Cited cited 104×
  4. Hall v Nominal Defendant [1966] HCA 36 Cited cited 210×
  5. Re Fuld (No 4) [1968] P 727 Cited cited 15×
  6. Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc [1981] HCA 39 Cited cited 623×
  7. Darling Downs Investments Pty Ltd v Ellwood (1988) 18 FCR 510 Cited cited 30×
  8. Lenijamar Pty Ltd v AGC (Advances) Ltd [1990] FCA 520 Cited cited 129×
  9. Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397 Cited cited 1,469×
  10. Caboolture Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd (in liq) v White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 667 Cited cited 101×
  11. Akki Pty Ltd v Martin Hall Pty Ltd (1994) 35 NSWLR 470 Cited cited 17×
  12. Beach Petroleum NL & Anor v Johnson, M.K. & Ors [1995] FCA 350 Cited cited 330×
  13. Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v The Shell Company of Australia Limited (1997) 72 FCR 386 Cited cited 17×
  14. Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Yandal Gold [2003] FCA 77 Cited cited 8×
  15. Bienstein v Bienstein [2003] HCA 7 Cited cited 237×
  16. Dunstan v Seymour [2006] FCA 917 Cited cited 6×
  17. Ginos Engineers Pty Ltd v Autodesk Australia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1051 Cited cited 29×
  18. Salfinger v Niugini Mining (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 5) [2008] FCA 1119 Cited cited 11×
  19. Probiotec Limited v The University of Melbourne [2008] FCAFC 5 Cited cited 57×
  20. Younan v Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCA 1 Cited
  21. Short v Crawley (No. 45) [2013] NSWSC 1541 Cited cited 41×
  22. Hudson v Sigalla [2014] FCCA 1652 Cited cited 2×
  23. Hacker v Weston [2015] FCA 790 Cited cited 4×
  24. Hudson v Sigalla [2015] FCAFC 140 Cited cited 5×
  25. Hudson v Sigalla (No.2) [2015] FCCA 542 Cited cited 2×
  26. Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 27 Cited cited 127×
  27. Hudson v Sigalla (No.3) [2016] FCCA 2140 Cited cited 2×
How the citator works

Citations are read from the text of each indexed judgment. A report citation written alongside a neutral citation, such as [2008] HCA 9; (2008) 234 CLR 50, teaches the citator that both name the same case, so later citations by either are counted together.

Treatment is read from the words in the sentence that cites the case: overruled or disapproved; not followed or declined to follow; distinguished or distinguishable; doubted; applied, followed or adopted. Anything else is cited. It is a guide to which judgments to read, not a judicial history: a judgment that discusses a case at length without one of those words is shown as citing it, and one mentioning several cases in a sentence may attach the word to all of them.

Only judgments in this index are counted, mostly the High Court, the Federal Court and New South Wales courts and tribunals since 2006. Earlier cases appear as authorities but their own authorities are unknown, so a tree ends there. Check a treatment by reading the passage before relying on it.

Judgment text is from the Open Australian Legal Corpus (Isaacus, CC BY 4.0) and the courts’ own websites. Each judgment links to its official version: read it before relying on anything here.